KHUB CHAND TYAGI Vs. D J B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

(2.) The parties to this petition entered into an Agreement dated 15th November, 2000 for replacement of old water line in Karol Barg, New Delhi. The petitioner is a partnership concern of Engineers and Contractors and the respondents are the Delhi Jal Board and its functionaries. Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-

(3.) It is not in dispute that upon disputes arising between the parties and in accordance with the above clause, the petitioner had called upon the respondent No.3 to appoint an arbitrator by addressing a communication to the Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board as provided in the aforesaid clause 25 on 22nd December, 2002 by a letter admittedly received by the said respondent. There was no response from the respondent No.3. On 21st April, 2004, the petitioner approached this Court under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act. In reply to the arbitration petition, Mr. Sushant Kumar for Mr. Nayyar appears on behalf of the respondents sought further time to file the reply. The reply has not been filed in spite of the opportunity having been given. The position of law in respect of the delayed response to a request for appointment of an arbitrator is to be found in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. & Another reported as JT 2000 (Suppl.2) SC 226 wherein the relevant para 19 reads as follows:-